Disney wants to drive tourists out to DCA/DLR. They've flat out said so.

That you haven't been there in 34 years demonstrates their need to do it.

Whether you experience the attraction or not isn't Disney's primary concern. It's WHERE you experience it, and why, that concerns them. They WANT you to HAVE to go to DLR.

If you choose not to..that's your decision. But Disney doesn't want to make the choice easy for you. That's not their goal in all this.

Click to expand...

I disagree . Disney makes much more $$ on WDW visitors (staying on site) than they do at DLR. DLR has very limited on site capacity and still isn't considered a destination like WDW is. Adding attractions isn't going to change that. California is still California and an awful long way for a significant percentage of vacationers to travel. Once the novelty of Carsland wears off I think it would make sense to add it at WDW to attract all those that can't or aren't willing to travel to the west coast. It's popularity at DLR will likely make the decision to add it at WDW much easier.

I disagree . Disney makes much more $$ on WDW visitors (staying on site) than they do at DLR. DLR has very limited on site capacity and still isn't considered a destination like WDW is.

Click to expand...

And that's exactly why Disney invested over a Billion dollars in DCA. It's a growth market. Disney wants people to realize that it's just as worthwhile to travel 1800 miles from Chicago to Anaheim as it is 1200 miles from Chi to Orlando.

Adding attractions isn't going to change that.

Click to expand...

It already has. Go find some of the reports showing how much attendance has increased at DCA since mid-June. It isn't just SoCal locals who are going to check-out the new attractions.

California is still California and an awful long way for a significant percentage of vacationers to travel.

Click to expand...

You speak like someone who thinks west of the Mississippi is a foreign country.

I agree that Walt Disney World is closer for many on the east coast. But we have a west coast, too. And a handful of middle states, too.

I'm curious...have you been to Disneyland in the last 5 years? Your comments sound more like generic (often erroneous) criticism from folks who have never been--at least not since construction of the Grand Californian, DCA, renovations to Disneyland Hotel, growth of Downtown Disney, etc.

Once the novelty of Carsland wears off I think it would make sense to add it at WDW to attract all those that can't or aren't willing to travel to the west coast. It's popularity at DLR will likely make the decision to add it at WDW much easier.

Click to expand...

And I fail to see why an organization like Walt Disney Imagineering cannot come up with an original concept. In the long run, I think it is far more valuable to both DL and WDW for them to maintain original offerings. There are very few people who "can't" travel to the west coast. More often it's a case of "aren't willing" to travel. And if those folks are sufficiently motivated, they'll find a reason to travel.

I'm quite sure there is some corporate synergistic, cost-saving logic behind cloning attractions. But I would much rather see something original.

If you handed Picasso two blank canvases, would you want him to paint the same picture twice?

I would rather not see Imagineering spend $1.5 billion to build the same attraction twice. The first one is there waiting. All you have to do is seek it out.

Not a true statement. If this is true what did he have planned when he made the announcement?

Click to expand...

He had E.P.C.O.T. planned. Not the theme park "EPCOT" but the Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow. It was to be a working city...not a Disneyland clone. And his plans were in such a raw state that when Walt passed away literally WEEKS after filming the famous video, Disney executives were paralyzed for more than a year as they tried to figure out how to proceed.

Finally the decision was made to simply clone Disneyland with a larger castle and wider walkways. Walt Disney--the man--had virtually no influence on what we know as Walt Disney World.

Not a true statement. If this is true what did he have planned when he made the announcement?

Click to expand...

EPCOT, the city plan. Yes, there was going to be a Disneyland style park, but that was not Walt's ownership at that point, he had his imagineers who he trusted to do that, to help fund his huge project.

EPCOT was 100% the reason why he wanted the land in Florida, he was going to revolutionize the idea of a city and wanted the major industries to help as well.

And that's exactly why Disney invested over a Billion dollars in DCA. It's a growth market. Disney wants people to realize that it's just as worthwhile to travel 1800 miles from Chicago to Anaheim as it is 1200 miles from Chi to Orlando.

It already has. Go find some of the reports showing how much attendance has increased at DCA since mid-June. It isn't just SoCal locals who are going to check-out the new attractions.

Show me the statistics on this. It certainly has increased the attendance in the short run. Show me that it has increased nationwide travel to any significant degree.

You speak like someone who thinks west of the Mississippi is a foreign country.

Not sure how you interpret sound from a text but look up population densities and, with the exception of CA you will see what I'm referring to.

I agree that Walt Disney World is closer for many on the east coast. But we have a west coast, too. And a handful of middle states, too.

I'm curious...have you been to Disneyland in the last 5 years? Your comments sound more like generic (often erroneous) criticism from folks who have never been--at least not since construction of the Grand Californian, DCA, renovations to Disneyland Hotel, growth of Downtown Disney, etc.

How about three times in the last 5 years. Last visit about a month before Lm opened.

And I fail to see why an organization like Walt Disney Imagineering cannot come up with an original concept. In the long run, I think it is far more valuable to both DL and WDW for them to maintain original offerings. There are very few people who "can't" travel to the west coast. More often it's a case of "aren't willing" to travel. And if those folks are sufficiently motivated, they'll find a reason to travel.

Because its much more expensive and I would suggest that the population of non DIS fans don't visit both parks on a regular basis.

I'm quite sure there is some corporate synergistic, cost-saving logic behind cloning attractions. But I would much rather see something original.

If you handed Picasso two blank canvases, would you want him to paint the same picture twice?

Don't like Picasso.

I would rather not see Imagineering spend $1.5 billion to build the same attraction twice. The first one is there waiting. All you have to do is seek it out.

He had E.P.C.O.T. planned. Not the theme park "EPCOT" but the Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow. It was to be a working city...not a Disneyland clone. And his plans were in such a raw state that when Walt passed away literally WEEKS after filming the famous video, Disney executives were paralyzed for more than a year as they tried to figure out how to proceed.

Finally the decision was made to simply clone Disneyland with a larger castle and wider walkways. Walt Disney--the man--had virtually no influence on what we know as Walt Disney World.

Click to expand...

Not true. He was more excited about the EPCOT project but without MK where was the revenue going to come from to support the development?

EPCOT, the city plan. Yes, there was going to be a Disneyland style park, but that was not Walt's ownership at that point, he had his imagineers who he trusted to do that, to help fund his huge project.

EPCOT was 100% the reason why he wanted the land in Florida, he was going to revolutionize the idea of a city and wanted the major industries to help as well.

Edit: Didn't notice tjkraz beat me to it!

Click to expand...

Yes but he knew it was part of the project. How were they planning on supporting the development of EPCOT without a source of revenue?

Not true. He was more excited about the EPCOT project but without MK where was the revenue going to come from to support the development?

Sorry IPad challenged. Responses imbedded above.

Click to expand...

Your right, its not true..Walt wanted a park on the East Coast, because they found very little people were coming from east of the Mississippi, hence the reason why he almost built a park in Kansas City. We have a resort in FL because the KC deal fell through.

By keeping Carsland in Cali you are asking the majority of the country, those east of the Mississippi to fly cross country, i dont see it happening. It's too expensive for most people to do on top of a Disney vacation.

Show me the statistics on this. It certainly has increased the attendance in the short run. Show me that it has increased nationwide travel to any significant degree.

Click to expand...

I can show you four plane tickets from July 2012.

Why does it have to be a "significant degree?" The point is increasing Disneyland's viability as a destination for those living in other parts of the US. Whether the overall increase is 100%, 10% or 1%, an increase is an increase.

And whatever increase in east/midwest travel Cars Land has caused, it will be lessened if the land is duplicated at WDW.

How about three times in the last 5 years. Last visit about a month before Lm opened.

Click to expand...

3 visits to Disneyland in 5 years and you think the duplication is a good idea?

Here is the part I simply cannot grasp: Why does it have to be Cars Land at Hollywood Studios? Is imagineering so bereft of good ideas that they cannot find an effective way to spend $750M on something unique for DHS? I completely understand all of the pros: great reviews, sells toys, blah, blah, blah.

So find another concept which meets all of those same criteria.

Hollywood Studios doesn't need Cars Land specifically...it needs new attractions. So build new attractions which are equally compelling and yet unique to that particular park.

Because its much more expensive and I would suggest that the population of non DIS fans don't visit both parks on a regular basis.

Click to expand...

Chicken and the egg. If Disney duplicates most attractions on both coasts, people in the east have no reason to ever consider a visit to Disneyland.

I live in Ohio and I've had flights LA which were cheaper than flights to Orlando.

Why does it have to be a "significant degree?" The point is increasing Disneyland's viability as a destination for those living in other parts of the US. Whether the overall increase is 100%, 10% or 1%, an increase is an increase.

And whatever increase in east/midwest travel Cars Land has caused, it will be lessened if the land is duplicated at WDW.

3 visits to Disneyland in 5 years and you think the duplication is a good idea?

Here is the part I simply cannot grasp: Why does it have to be Cars Land at Hollywood Studios? Is imagineering so bereft of good ideas that they cannot find an effective way to spend $750M on something unique for DHS? I completely understand all of the pros: great reviews, sells toys, blah, blah, blah.

So find another concept which meets all of those same criteria.

Hollywood Studios doesn't need Cars Land specifically...it needs new attractions. So build new attractions which are equally compelling and yet unique to that particular park.

Chicken and the egg. If Disney duplicates most attractions on both coasts, people in the east have no reason to ever consider a visit to Disneyland.

I live in Ohio and I've had flights LA which were cheaper than flights to Orlando.

Click to expand...

Points taken. My comment was more directed at staying power rather than the impact of something new.

While it would be great if they could come up with a new concept that would blow us all away, I have faith that a Carsland at HS might plus the attraction at DLR to make it even better. IE eliminating the floating tire deal. After all while Disney has duplicated rides at its parks they often tweak them to improve the experience.

I think everyone agrees that HS Ned's help. I would rather se Carsland than nothing.

When WDW first started there were a number of attraction which were slightly different versions of DL rides, Pirates, Mansion, etc.

However in the last 10 or 20 years i cannot think of a single new ride at either American resort (International are a different kettle of fish by definition) which was a duplication of an existing one at the other resort.

Not a true statement. If this is true what did he have planned when he made the announcement?

Click to expand...

Sorry, but it is a true statement. It's one a LOT of people don't realize, but it's true.

Listen to the announcement.

He planned EPCOT. NOT the theme park version...the futuristic city.

Magic Kingdom was a concession (and one Walt fought against for early parts of the project). It was Roy's baby, really....with some insistence from the Florida Goverment as part of the deal to give Reedy Creek it's broad authority.

Walt didn't "build wDW" specifically so people on the east coast had easier access to a DL style park. He just didn't.

I disagree . Disney makes much more $$ on WDW visitors (staying on site) than they do at DLR. DLR has very limited on site capacity and still isn't considered a destination like WDW is. Adding attractions isn't going to change that. California is still California and an awful long way for a significant percentage of vacationers to travel. Once the novelty of Carsland wears off I think it would make sense to add it at WDW to attract all those that can't or aren't willing to travel to the west coast. It's popularity at DLR will likely make the decision to add it at WDW much easier.

Click to expand...

WDW isn't much of a growth market. In other words...they've got your full vacation time accounted for. They've more or less maximized per capita guest spending. The only way they build something is if they think they can extend your stay, or increase per capita guest spending. I've yet to hear a plausible explanation as to how Cars Land at WDW would do either.

Right now, they've got pretty close to 7 days of your vacation filled at WDW. You have 2 half day parks..which, honestly, works to their advantage because it drives guest to other profit centers (water parks, restaurants, etc), and 2 "day and a half" (at least) parks. And, for the most part, they have their guests held hostage on property. In some cases because Disney was the sole method of transport to/from the airport. And in other cases because of the sheer size of the resort.

DLR, on the other hand, IS a growth market. They have spare hotel capacity, they have room to grow attendance numbers, and they have room to expand both per capita guest spending AND length of stay.

It's a market that makes much more sense for Disney to invest in.

They WANT it to be considered a destination. That's the point. That's why they put just over a billion dollars (and 750 million into Cars land) into what was essentially a new park. It wasn't doing the job they wanted it to do.

If it's TRULY popular at DCA, and it does what they've set it up to do (increase tourism), I'd actually say it's LESS likely to come to WDW. For exactly those reasons.

Show me the statistics on this. It certainly has increased the attendance in the short run. Show me that it has increased nationwide travel to any significant degree.

Click to expand...

It doesn't have to.

It has to increase attendance without pulling too many from DL. It's doing that.

We'll never see Disney data, so if that's what it's going to take to convince you...there will forever be a disconnect.

But sound business logic and observation will tell you what tjkraz is telling you is, in fact, true. And it's certainly Disney's STATED goal...to make DLR more of a destination vactation and not as much of a locals park.

Not sure how you interpret sound from a text but look up population densities and, with the exception of CA you will see what I'm referring to.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant.

There is still, geographically, a decent sized portion of the country you can cater to. Millions. Just because it's not "as large" as the east coast really has no relevance.

IF Disney's goal was simply to expose Cars Land to the largest number of customers/guests...it would have been built at WDW in the first place.

It's not, so it wasn't.

The goal is to garner more UNIQUE visitors and increase revenue/profit. A "unique" land at DLR helps do that. Cutting off ANY potential visits by cannibalizing/cloning it is counter-productive.

How about three times in the last 5 years. Last visit about a month before Lm opened.

Click to expand...

Then....you've just made the case that you CAN travel from the East Coast to the West Coast.

Because its much more expensive and I would suggest that the population of non DIS fans don't visit both parks on a regular basis.

Click to expand...

Possibly not.

But the goal isn't to have everyone see it. That's what the FANS want...not necessarily what Disney wants, or is in their best interests.

Saying "It should be built here because I want to see it" isn't a real compelling case.

Don't like Picasso.

Click to expand...

Rembrandt, Divinci, Renoir?

It's a still a valid point.

Not true. He was more excited about the EPCOT project but without MK where was the revenue going to come from to support the development?

Sorry IPad challenged. Responses imbedded above.

Click to expand...

It is absolutely 100% true.

Roy used the MK project to get funding, and to get the concessions they needed out of the Florida State Legislature.

Walt was not a fan of the idea. He ultimately accepted it as being necessary. His original plan DID NOT INCLUDE an MK style park.

WDW isn't much of a growth market. In other words...they've got your full vacation time accounted for. They've more or less maximized per capita guest spending. The only way they build something is if they think they can extend your stay, or increase per capita guest spending. I've yet to hear a plausible explanation as to how Cars Land at WDW would do either.

Right now, they've got pretty close to 7 days of your vacation filled at WDW. You have 2 half day parks..which, honestly, works to their advantage because it drives guest to other profit centers (water parks, restaurants, etc), and 2 "day and a half" (at least) parks. And, for the most part, they have their guests held hostage on property. In some cases because Disney was the sole method of transport to/from the airport. And in other cases because of the sheer size of the resort.

DLR, on the other hand, IS a growth market. They have spare hotel capacity, they have room to grow attendance numbers, and they have room to expand both per capita guest spending AND length of stay.

It's a market that makes much more sense for Disney to invest in.

They WANT it to be considered a destination. That's the point. That's why they put just over a billion dollars (and 750 million into Cars land) into what was essentially a new park. It wasn't doing the job they wanted it to do.

If it's TRULY popular at DCA, and it does what they've set it up to do (increase tourism), I'd actually say it's LESS likely to come to WDW. For exactly those reasons.

Click to expand...

Sure Disney has got us at WDW, most of us plan at least a 7 day vacation to WDW and stay there the entire time. However, that doesn't mean they need to stop adding things to their resort, if don't invest in WDW then what happens? It runs the risk of getting stale.

Now is not the time for Disney to sit back and do nothing, reports are hotel occupancy at WDW are down along with Magical Express ridership. On top of that, another resort right down the street just added a major area of a theme park that is extremely successful. The other said resort is in the process of building another section of Harry Potter in it's other park and is getting ready to build a Transformers attraction. Disney can't just sit on their hands.

Something will happen at DHS, mark my words. I like the idea of Cars Land, I think its a great idea, however I would be just as happy if it was something else that is equally as good as Cars Land in DCA.

The United States is large enough to support two Disney Resorts, I personally think its extremely short sighted to believe that people from the East Coast are going to fly all the way over the the West Coast simply because of a DCA remake. An average flight per person from Charlotte, NC to LA nonstop, runs about $400, so for a family of 4, that's $1,600, not including baggage fees. No thanks, with all the fees associated with flying, it adds up to almost what a week at an All Star Resort cost. I'll spend less than a quarter of that on gas and drive the 8 hours to WDW.